Conformity

Look up conformity in
Wiktionary, the free
dictionary.

Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

to group norms, politics or being like-minded.[1] Norms are implicit, specific rules, shared
by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others. People often choose
to conform to society rather than to pursue personal desires - because it is often easier
to follow the path others have made already, rather than forging a new one. This
tendency to conform occurs in small groups and/or in society as a whole, and may
result from subtle unconscious influences (predisposed state of mind), or from direct
and overt social pressure. Conformity can occur in the presence of others, or when an
individual is alone. For example, people tend to follow social norms when eating or
when watching television, even if alone.[citation needed]
Changing our behaviors to match the responses of others, which is conformity, can be
conscious or not.[2] People have an intrinsic tendency to unconsciously imitate other's
behaviors such as gesture, language, talking speed, and other actions of the people
they interact with.[3] There are two other main reasons for conformity: informational
influence and normative influence.[3] People display conformity in response to
informational influence when they believe the group is better informed, or in response to
normative influence when they are afraid of rejection.[4] When the advocated norm could
be correct, the informational influence is more important than the normative influence,
while otherwise the normative influence dominates.[5] A meta-analysis of 125 Asch-type
conformity wrote that normative influence is likely to occur when people make direct
contact with the majority while informational influence is likely to occur when people
make indirect contact with the majority.[6]
People often conform from a desire for security within a group, also known as normative
influence[7]—typically a group of a similar age, culture, religion or educational status.
This is often referred to as groupthink: a pattern of thought characterized by self-
deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics,
which ignores realistic appraisal of other courses of action. Unwillingness to conform
carries the risk of social rejection. Conformity is often associated in media with
adolescence and youth culture, but strongly affects humans of all ages.[8]
Although peer pressure may manifest negatively, conformity can be regarded as either
good or bad. Driving on the conventionally-approved side of the road may be seen as
beneficial conformity.[9] With the appropriate environmental influence, conforming, in
early childhood years, allows one to learn and thus, adopt the appropriate behaviours
necessary to interact and develop "correctly" within one's society.[10] Conformity
influences the formation and maintenance of social norms, and helps societies function
smoothly and predictably via the self-elimination of behaviors seen as contrary to
unwritten rules.[11]
According to Herbert Kelman, there are three types of conformity: 1) compliance (which
is public conformity and it is motivated by the need for approval or the fear of being
disapproval; 2) identification (which is a deeper type of conformism than compliance);
3) internalization(which is to conform both publicly and privately).[12]
Major factors that influence the degree of conformity include culture, gender, age, size
of the group, situational factors, and different stimuli. In some cases, minority influence,
a special case of informational influence, can resist the pressure to conform and
influence the majority to accept the minority's belief or behaviors.[4]

Contents

 1Definition and context

o 1.1Definition
o 1.2Peer
o 1.3Social responses
 2Main experiments
o 2.1Sherif's experiment (1935)
o 2.2Asch's experiment (1951)
 3Varieties
o 3.1Informational influence
o 3.2Normative influence
 4Minority influence
 5Specific predictors
o 5.1Culture
o 5.2Gender
o 5.3Age
o 5.4Size of the group
o 5.5Situational Factors
o 5.6Different stimuli
o 5.7Neural correlates
 6See also
 7References
 8External links

Definition and context[edit]

Definition[edit]
Conformity is the tendency to change our perceptions, opinions, or behaviors in ways
that are consistent with group norms.[13] Norms are implicit, specific rules shared by a
group of individuals on how they should behave.[14] People may be susceptible to
conform to group norms because they want to gain acceptance from their group.[14]
Peer[edit]
Some adolescents gain acceptance and recognition from their peers by conformity. This
peer moderated conformity increases from the transition of childhood to adolescence.
  It follows a U-shaped age pattern wherein conformity increases through childhood,
[15]

peaking at sixth and ninth grades and then declines.[16] Adolescents often follow the logic
that "if everyone else is doing it, then it must be good and right".[17] However, it is found
that they are more likely to conform if peer pressure involves neutral activities such as
those in sports, entertainment, and prosocial behaviors rather than anti-social
behaviors.[16] Researchers have found that peer conformity is strongest for individuals
who reported strong identification with their friends or groups, making them more likely
to adopt beliefs and behaviors accepted in such circle.[18][19]
Social responses[edit]
According to Donelson Forsyth, after submitting to group pressures, individuals may find
themselves facing one of several responses to conformity. These types of responses to
conformity vary in their degree of public agreement versus private agreement.
When an individual finds themselves in a position where they publicly agree with the
group's decision yet privately disagrees with the group's consensus, they are
experiencing compliance or acquiescence. In turn, conversion, otherwise known
as private acceptance, involves both publicly and privately agreeing with the group's
decision. Thus, this represents a true change of opinion to match the majority.
Another type of social response, which does not involve conformity with the majority of
the group, is called convergence. In this type of social response, the group member
agrees with the group's decision from the outset and thus does not need to shift their
opinion on the matter at hand.[20]
In addition, Forsyth shows that nonconformity can also fall into one of two response
categories. Firstly, an individual who does not conform to the majority can
display independence. Independence, or dissent, can be defined as the unwillingness to
bend to group pressures. Thus, this individual stays true to his or her personal
standards instead of the swaying toward group standards. Secondly, a nonconformist
could be displaying anticonformity or counterconformity which involves the taking of
opinions that are opposite to what the group believes. This type of nonconformity can be
motivated by a need to rebel against the status quo instead of the need to be accurate
in one's opinion.
To conclude, social responses to conformity can be seen to vary along a continuum
from conversion to anticonformity. For example, a popular experiment in conformity
research, known as the Asch situation or Asch conformity experiments, primarily
includes compliance and independence. Also, other responses to conformity can be
identified in groups such as juries, sports teams and work teams.[20]

Main experiments[edit]
Sherif's experiment (1935)[edit]
Muzafer Sherif was interested in knowing how many people would change their
opinions to bring them in line with the opinion of a group. In his experiment, participants
were placed in a dark room and asked to stare at a small dot of light 15 feet away. They
were then asked to estimate the amount it moved. The trick was there was no
movement, it was caused by a visual illusion known as the autokinetic effect. On the
first day, each person perceived different amounts of movement, but from the second to
the fourth day, the same estimate was agreed on and others conformed to it.[21] Sherif
suggested this was a simulation for how social norms develop in a society, providing a
common frame of reference for people.
Subsequent experiments were based on more realistic situations. In an eyewitness
identification task, participants were shown a suspect individually and then in a lineup of
other suspects. They were given one second to identify him, making it a difficult task.
One group was told that their input was very important and would be used by the legal
community. To the other it was simply a trial. Being more motivated to get the right
answer increased the tendency to conform. Those who wanted to be more accurate
conformed 51% of the time as opposed to 35% in the other group.[22]
Asch's experiment (1951)[edit]
Main article: Asch conformity experiments

Which line matches the first line, A, B, or C? In the Asch conformity experiments, people frequently followed the
majority judgment, even when the majority was wrong.

Solomon E. Asch conducted a modification of Sherif's study, assuming that when the
situation was very clear, conformity would be drastically reduced. He exposed people in
a group to a series of lines, and the participants were asked to match one line with a
standard line. All participants except one were accomplices and gave the wrong answer
in 12 of the 18 trials.[23]
The results showed a surprisingly high degree of conformity: 74% of the participants
conformed on at least one trial. On average people conformed one third of the time.[23] A
question is how the group would affect individuals in a situation where the correct
answer is less obvious.[24]
After his first test, Asch wanted to investigate whether the size or unanimity of the
majority had greater influence on test subjects. "Which aspect of the influence of a
majority is more important – the size of the majority or its unanimity? The experiment
was modified to examine this question. In one series the size of the opposition was
varied from one to 15 persons."[25] The results clearly showed that as more people
opposed the subject, the subject became more likely to conform. However, the
increasing majority was only influential up to a point: from three or more opponents,
there is more than 30% of conformity.[23]
Besides that, this experiment proved that conformity is powerful, but also fragile. It is
powerful because just by having actors giving the wrong answer made the participant to
also give the wrong answer, even though they knew it was not correct. It is also fragile,
however, because in one of the variants for the experiment, one of the actors was
supposed to give the correct answer, being an "ally" to the participant. With an ally, the
participant was more likely to give the correct answer than he was before the ally. In
addition, if the participant was able to write down the answer, instead of saying out loud,
he was also more likely to put the correct answer. The reason for that is because he
was not afraid of being different from the rest of the group since the answers were
hidden.[26]

Varieties[edit]
Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman identified three major types of conformity.[27]

 Compliance is public conformity, while possibly keeping one's own original

beliefs for yourself. Compliance is motivated by the need for approval and the
fear of being rejected.
 Identification is conforming to someone who is liked and respected, such as a
celebrity or a favorite uncle. This can be motivated by the attractiveness of
the source,[27] and this is a deeper type of conformism than compliance.
 Internalization is accepting the belief or behavior and conforming both
publicly and privately, if the source is credible. It is the deepest influence on
people and it will affect them for a long time.
Although Kelman's distinction has been influential, research in social psychology has
focused primarily on two varieties of conformity. These are informational conformity,
or informational social influence, and normative conformity, also called normative social
influence. In Kelman's terminology, these correspond to internalization and compliance,
respectively. There are naturally more than two or three variables in society influential
on human psychology and conformity; the notion of "varieties" of conformity based upon
"social influence" is ambiguous and indefinable in this context.
For Deutsch and Gérard (1955), conformity results from a motivational conflict (between
the fear of being socially rejected and the wish to say what we think is correct) that
leads to the normative influence, and a cognitive conflict (others create doubts in what
we think) which leads to the informational influence.[28]
Informational influence[edit]
Main article: Informational social influence
Informational social influence occurs when one turns to the members of one's group to
obtain and accept accurate information about reality. A person is most likely to use
informational social influence in certain situations: when a situation is ambiguous,
people become uncertain about what to do and they are more likely to depend on others
for the answer; and during a crisis when immediate action is necessary, in spite of
panic. Looking to other people can help ease fears, but unfortunately they are not
always right. The more knowledgeable a person is, the more valuable they are as a
resource. Thus people often turn to experts for help. But once again people must be
careful, as experts can make mistakes too. Informational social influence often results
in internalization or private acceptance, where a person genuinely believes that the
information is right.[21]
Normative influence[edit]
Main article: Normative social influence
Normative social influence occurs when one conforms to be liked or accepted by the
members of the group. This need of social approval and acceptance is part of our state
of humans.[21] In addition to this, we know that when people do not conform with their
group and therefore are deviants, they are less liked and even punished by the group.
[29]
 Normative influence usually results in public compliance, doing or saying something
without believing in it. The experiment of Asch in 1951 is one example of normative
influence. Even though John Turner et al. argued that the post experimental interviews
showed that the respondents were uncertain about the correct answers in some cases.
The answers might have been evident to the experimenters but the participants did not
have the same experience. Subsequent studies pointed out the fact that the participants
were not known to each other and therefore did not pose a threat against social
rejection. See: Normative influence vs. referent informational influence
In a reinterpretation of the original data from these experiments Hodges and Geyer
(2006)[30] found that Asch's subjects were not so conformist after all: The experiments
provide powerful evidence for people's tendency to tell the truth even when others do
not. They also provide compelling evidence of people's concern for others and their
views. By closely examining the situation in which Asch's subjects find themselves they
find that the situation places multiple demands on participants: They include truth (i.e.,
expressing one's own view accurately), trust (i.e., taking seriously the value of others'
claims), and social solidarity (i.e., a commitment to integrate the views of self and others
without deprecating either). In addition to these epistemic values, there are multiple
moral claims as well: These include the need for participants to care for the integrity and
well-being of other participants, the experimenter, themselves, and the worth of
scientific research.
Deutsch & Gérard (1955) designed different situations that variated from Asch'
experiment and found that when participants were writing their answer privately, they
were giving the correct one[28]
Normative influence, a function of social impact theory, has three components.
[31]
 The number of people in the group has a surprising effect. As the number increases,
each person has less of an impact. A group's strength is how important the group is to a
person. Groups we value generally have more social influence. Immediacy is how close
the group is in time and space when the influence is taking place. Psychologists have
constructed a mathematical model using these three factors and are able to predict the
amount of conformity that occurs with some degree of accuracy.[32]
Baron and his colleagues conducted a second eyewitness study that focused on
normative influence. In this version, the task was easier. Each participant had five
seconds to look at a slide instead of just one second. Once again, there were both high
and low motives to be accurate, but the results were the reverse of the first study. The
low motivation group conformed 33% of the time (similar to Asch's findings). The high
motivation group conformed less at 16%. These results show that when accuracy is not
very important, it is better to get the wrong answer than to risk social disapproval.
An experiment using procedures similar to Asch's found that there was significantly less
conformity in six-person groups of friends as compared to six-person groups of
strangers.[33] Because friends already know and accept each other, there may be less
normative pressure to conform in some situations. Field studies on cigarette and alcohol
abuse, however, generally demonstrate evidence of friends exerting normative social
influence on each other.[34]

Minority influence[edit]
Main article: Minority influence
Although conformity generally leads individuals to think and act more like groups,
individuals are occasionally able to reverse this tendency and change the people
around them. This is known as minority influence, a special case of informational
influence. Minority influence is most likely when people can make a clear and consistent
case for their point of view. If the minority fluctuates and shows uncertainty, the chance
of influence is small. However, a minority that makes a strong, convincing case
increases the probability of changing the majority's beliefs and behaviors.[35] Minority
members who are perceived as experts, are high in status, or have benefited the group
in the past are also more likely to succeed.
Another form of minority influence can sometimes override conformity effects and lead
to unhealthy group dynamics. A 2007 review of two dozen studies by the University of
Washington found that a single "bad apple" (an inconsiderate or negligent group
member) can substantially increase conflicts and reduce performance in work groups.
Bad apples often create a negative emotional climate that interferes with healthy group
functioning. They can be avoided by careful selection procedures and managed by
reassigning them to positions that require less social interaction.[36]

Specific predictors[edit]
Culture[edit]
Individualism versus collectivism worldwide (5 August 2020) Description: countries colored with green have
cultures that are more individualistic than the world average. Countries colored in red have relatively
collectivistic cultures.

Stanley Milgram found that individuals in Norway (from a collectivistic culture) exhibited

a higher degree of conformity than individuals in France (from an individualistic culture).
[37]
 Similarly, Berry studied two different populations: the Temne (collectivists) and the
Inuit (individualists) and found that the Temne conformed more than the Inuit when
exposed to a conformity task.[38]
Bond and Smith compared 134 studies in a meta-analysis and found that there is a
positive correlation between a country's level of collectivistic values and conformity rates
in the Asch paradigm.[39] Bond and Smith also reported that conformity has declined in
the United States over time.
Influenced by the writings of late-19th- and early-20th-century Western travelers,
scholars or diplomats who visited Japan, such as Basil Hall Chamberlain, George
Trumbull Ladd and Percival Lowell, as well as by Ruth Benedict's influential book The
Chrysanthemum and the Sword, many scholars of Japanese studies speculated that
there would be a higher propensity to conform in Japanese culture than in American
culture. However, this view was not formed on the basis of empirical evidence collected
in a systematic way, but rather on the basis of anecdotes and casual observations,
which are subject to a variety of cognitive biases. Modern scientific studies comparing
conformity in Japan and the United States show that Americans conform in general as
much as the Japanese and, in some situations, even more. Psychology
professor Yohtaro Takano from the University of Tokyo, along with Eiko Osaka
reviewed four behavioral studies and found that the rate of conformity errors that the
Japanese subjects manifested in the Asch paradigm was similar with that manifested by
Americans.[40] The study published in 1970 by Robert Frager from the University of
California, Santa Cruz found that the percentage of conformity errors within the Asch
paradigm was significantly lower in Japan than in the United States, especially in the
prize condition. Another study published in 2008, which compared the level of
conformity among Japanese in-groups (peers from the same college clubs) with that
found among Americans found no substantial difference in the level of conformity
manifested by the two nations, even in the case of in-groups.[41]
Gender[edit]
Societal norms often establish gender differences and researchers have reported
differences in the way men and women conform to social influence.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48] For
example, Alice Eagly and Linda Carli performed a meta-analysis of 148 studies of
influenceability. They found that women are more persuadable and more conforming
than men in group pressure situations that involve surveillance.[49] Eagly has proposed
that this sex difference may be due to different sex roles in society.[50] Women are
generally taught to be more agreeable whereas men are taught to be more
independent.
The composition of the group plays a role in conformity as well. In a study by Reitan and
Shaw, it was found that men and women conformed more when there were participants
of both sexes involved versus participants of the same sex. Subjects in the groups with
both sexes were more apprehensive when there was a discrepancy amongst group
members, and thus the subjects reported that they doubted their own judgments.
[43]
 Sistrunk and McDavid made the argument that women conformed more because of a
methodological bias.[51] They argued that because stereotypes used in studies are
generally male ones (sports, cars..) more than female ones (cooking, fashion..), women
are feeling uncertain and conformed more, which was confirmed by their results.
Age[edit]
Research has noted age differences in conformity. For example, research with
Australian children and adolescents ages 3 to 17 discovered that conformity decreases
with age.[52] Another study examined individuals that were ranged from ages 18 to 91.
[53]
 The results revealed a similar trend – older participants displayed less conformity
when compared to younger participants.
In the same way that gender has been viewed as corresponding to status, age has also
been argued to have status implications. Berger, Rosenholtz and Zelditch suggest that
age as a status role can be observed among college students. Younger students, such
as those in their first year in college, are treated as lower-status individuals and older
college students are treated as higher-status individuals.[54] Therefore, given these status
roles, it would be expected that younger individuals (low status) conform to the majority
whereas older individuals (high status) would be expected not to conform [55]
Researchers have also reported an interaction of gender and age on conformity.[56] Eagly
and Chrvala examined the role of age (under 19 years vs. 19 years and older), gender
and surveillance (anticipating responses to be shared with group members vs. not
anticipating responses being shared) on conformity to group opinions. They discovered
that among participants that were 19 years or older, females conformed to group
opinions more so than males when under surveillance (i.e., anticipated that their
responses would be shared with group members). However, there were no gender
differences in conformity among participants who were under 19 years of age and in
surveillance conditions. There were also no gender differences when participants were
not under surveillance. In a subsequent research article, Eagly suggests that women
are more likely to conform than men because of lower status roles of women in society.
She suggests that more submissive roles (i.e., conforming) are expected of individuals
that hold low status roles.[55] Still, Eagly and Chrvala's results do conflict with previous
research which have found higher conformity levels among younger rather than older
individuals.
Size of the group[edit]
Although conformity pressures generally increase as the size of the majority
increases, Asch's experiment in 1951 stated that increasing the size of the group will
have no additional impact beyond a majority of size three.[57] Brown and Byrne's 1997
study described a possible explanation that people may suspect collusion when the
majority exceeds three or four.[57] Gerard's 1968 study reported a linear relationship
between the group size and conformity when the group size ranges from two to seven
people.[58] According to Latane's 1981 study, the number of the majority is one factor that
influences the degree of conformity, and there are other factors like strength and
immediacy.[59]
Moreover, a study suggests that the effects of group size depend on the type of social
influence operating.[60] This means that in situations where the group is clearly wrong,
conformity will be motivated by normative influence; the participants will conform in
order to be accepted by the group. A participant may not feel much pressure to conform
when the first person gives an incorrect response. However, conformity pressure will
increase as each additional group member also gives the same incorrect response.[60]
Situational Factors[edit]
Research has found different group and situation factors that affect conformity.
Accountability increases conformity, if an individual is trying to be accepted by a group
which has certain preferences, then individuals are more likely to conform to match the
group.[61] Similarly, the attractiveness of group members increases conformity. If an
individual wishes to be liked by the group, they are increasingly likely to conform.[62]
Accuracy also effects conformity, as the more accurate and reasonable the majority is in
their decision than the more likely the individual will be to conform.[63] As mentioned
earlier, size also effects individuals’ likelihood to conform.[26] The larger the majority the
more likely an individual will conform to that majority. Similarly, the less ambiguous the
task or decision is, the more likely someone will conform to the group.[64] When tasks are
ambiguous people are less pressured to conform. Task difficulty also increases
conformity, but research has found that conformity increases when the task is difficult
but also important.[65]
Research has also found that as individuals become more aware that they disagree with
the majority they feel more pressure, and hence are more likely to conform to the
decisions of the group.[66] Likewise, when responses must be made face-face, individuals
increasingly conform, and therefore conformity increases as the anonymity of the
response in a group decreases. Conformity also increases when individuals have
committed themselves to the group making decisions.[67]
Conformity has also been shown to be linked to cohesiveness. Cohesiveness is how
strongly members of a group are linked together, and conformity has been found to
increase as group cohesiveness increases.[68] Similarly, conformity is also higher when
individuals are committed and wish to stay in the group.  Conformity is also higher when
individuals are in situations involving existential thoughts that cause anxiety, in these
situation individuals are more likely to conform to the majority's decisions.[69]
Different stimuli[edit]
In 1961 Stanley Milgram published a study in which he utilized Asch's conformity
paradigm using audio tones instead of lines; he conducted his study in Norway and
France.[37] He found substantially higher levels of conformity than Asch, with participants
conforming 50% of the time in France and 62% of the time in Norway during critical
trials. Milgram also conducted the same experiment once more, but told participants
that the results of the study would be applied to the design of aircraft safety signals. His
conformity estimates were 56% in Norway and 46% in France, suggesting that
individuals conformed slightly less when the task was linked to an important issue.
Stanley Milgram's study demonstrated that Asch's study could be replicated with other
stimuli, and that in the case of tones, there was a high degree of conformity. [70]
Neural correlates[edit]
Evidence has been found for the involvement of the posterior medial frontal cortex
(pMFC) in conformity,[71] an area associated with memory and decision-making. For
example, Klucharev et al.[72] revealed in their study that by using repetitive transcranial
magnetic stimulation on the pMFC, participants reduced their tendency to conform to
the group, suggesting a causal role for the brain region in social conformity.
Neuroscience has also shown how people quickly develop similar values for things.
Opinions of others immediately change the brain's reward response in the ventral
striatum to receiving or losing the object in question, in proportion to how susceptible
the person is to social influence. Having similar opinions to others can also generate a
reward response.[70]
The amygdala and hippocampus have also been found to be recruited when individuals
participated in a social manipulation experiment involving long-term memory.[73] Several
other areas have further been suggested to play a role in conformity, including
the insula, the temporoparietal junction, the ventral striatum, and the anterior and
posterior cingulate cortices.[74][75][76][77][78]
More recent work[79] stresses the role of orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) in conformity not only
at the time of social influence,[80] but also later on, when participants are given an
opportunity to conform by selecting an action. In particular, Charpentier et al. found that
the OFC mirrors the exposure to social influence at a subsequent time point, when a
decision is being made without the social influence being present. The tendency to
conform has also been observed in the structure of the OFC, with a greater grey
matter volume in high conformers.[81]